Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-pms
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: Clarify wording on self-blockers
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:19:17 +0200
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

>> Portage ignores self-blockers both in DEPEND and RDEPEND.

> Even strong blockers?

No, strongs blockers are honoured in this case. (Which is fine, since
the spec says "A strong block must not be ignored.")

Updated patch (I've added the word "weak") is included below.

> Also, what happens for packages that can't be rebuilt once they're
> installed (e.g. because they screw up and use stuff on / if it's
> there)?

Such packages should be fixed. But if someone really needs a DEPEND
blocker on the ebuild's version itself, he can use EAPI 2 or later and
a strong blocker.

> We've got this weird situation where DEPEND=!!self would prevent you
> from upgrading or downgrading, but wouldn't stop you from rebuilding
> the exact same version. That doesn't seem right.

> It seems weird that we're mandating that a package manager should
> just outright ignore bits of dependency variables. Maybe it would be
> better to mark it as undefined as to whether or not the package
> manager honours such a block (and tell people not to do it), and
> then for the next EAPI figure out the logical meaning and specify
> that?

I don't like adding such "undefined" bits in cases where portage
behaviour is well-defined.

Ulrich


From 5935aa87d46a97a72c8c032728f50a6ecbdf864d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:10:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Clarify wording on self-blockers.

---
 dependencies.tex |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dependencies.tex b/dependencies.tex
index 362f6cc..f6318d8 100644
--- a/dependencies.tex
+++ b/dependencies.tex
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ following exceptions:
 
 \begin{compactitem}
 \item Blocks on a package provided exclusively by the ebuild do not count. \label{provided-blocks}
-\item Blocks on the ebuild itself do not count.
+\item Weak blocks on the package version of the ebuild itself do not count.
 \end{compactitem}
 
 \featurelabel{bang-strength} There are two strengths of block: weak and strong. A weak block may be
-- 
1.7.5.rc1



Replies:
Re: Clarify wording on self-blockers
-- Ciaran McCreesh
References:
Clarify wording on self-blockers
-- Ulrich Mueller
Re: Clarify wording on self-blockers
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Clarify wording on self-blockers
Next by thread:
Re: Clarify wording on self-blockers
Previous by date:
Re: Clarify wording on self-blockers
Next by date:
Re: Clarify wording on self-blockers


Updated Jul 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-pms mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.